Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 02:43 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 02:43

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 136
Own Kudos [?]: 1905 [49]
Given Kudos: 21
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 49 [32]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92912
Own Kudos [?]: 618888 [2]
Given Kudos: 81595
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2014
Posts: 104
Own Kudos [?]: 806 [1]
Given Kudos: 49
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V25
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V40
Send PM
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increase [#permalink]
1
Kudos
A)For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry.
Nowhere it is mentioned that only the new arrivals were responsible for the increase in fish consumption.
It could be that the whole of increased population was responsible for the increase.

B)In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
Yes, the total consumption increased but no where it is mentioned that the residents consumed it.
They could be buying fish to simply feed the bear, dog or just make cod liver oil from that.

C)The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.
CORRECT.

D)Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.
Too many absolute modifiers here:
1) "regular part of the diet" Maybe they use it only during gatherings and functions.
2) "significant proportion" Maybe only a insignificant proportion consume a lot of fish and poultry?

E)Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
No mention about "profits". Incorrect
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2019
Posts: 474
Own Kudos [?]: 342 [0]
Given Kudos: 28
Send PM
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increase [#permalink]
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.

Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?

A. For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry.
- we do not have specific information, in the passage, regarding the dietary choices of the new arrivals. hence, we cannot make specific statements regarding their dietary choices.

B. In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish
. - (B) deals with the amount of poultry consumed. Nowhere in the passage is the 'particular consumption levels (amounts)' presented in detail.

C. The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000. Per capita consumption can be thought of as the ratio of 'total poultry consumed' to 'total population'. we known that poultry consumption increased by 9% (as measured in 2005), while the population only grew by 6%. Hence, the overall per capita ratio (for 2005) increased as compared to its level in 2000. So, we can reasonably infer that more poultry (on averagewas consumed in 2005 than in 2000. Hence, (C) is the right answer choice.

D. Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.
- we do not have information regarding what can be considered as a regular part of the residents diets. it's certainly possible that another product (such as milk) may be a regular, and not poultry products.

E. Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
- the passage does not contain any information regarding profits.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 109 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Location: Saudi Arabia
GPA: 3.8
WE:Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increase [#permalink]
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.

Pre-thinking Analysis:-
Lets suppose,
Consumption of Fish in Yr2000 = 100
Consumption of Fish in Yr2005 = 104.5

Consumption of Poultry in Yr2000 = 100
Consumption of Poultry in Yr2005 = 109

Population of Eastland in Yr2000 = 100
Population of Eastland in Yr2005 = 106

Per capita poultry consumption in 2000= 100/100 = 1
Per capita poultry consumption in 2005= 109/106= >1

Per capita fish consumption in 2000= 100/100 = 1
Per capita fish consumption in 2005 = 104.5/106<1

Now we can look each & every option.

A. For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry.

- passage didn't mentioned regarding "diet" so its incorrect.


B. In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.

- There is no data regarding "consumption" so its clearly incorrect.

C. The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.

- This absolutely matches with our pre-thinking analysis. Hence correct

D. Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.

- didn't talk about "diet of a significant proportion " Incorrect

E. Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.

- regarding "profits " no data available in the passage

IMO(C)
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Jul 2020
Posts: 1139
Own Kudos [?]: 1292 [0]
Given Kudos: 351
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increase [#permalink]
This question checks about as population increases by 6%, fish and poltary increased by 4.5% and 9% from 200 to 2005, then what do we Infer.

Only C matches the Inference criteria.

So, It is C. :)

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17216
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increase [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increase [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne